Bug#941147: Please stop removing affects of #941147
affects 941147 =
user debian-cross@lists.debian.org
usertags 941147 - cross-satisfiability
thanks
Hi Pino,
I need to apologize. Twice.
owner@bugs.d.o: Please withdraw any concern I had about Pino. It was in
error.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:53:34AM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> I am part of the team working on these packages, and thus the changes
> I do are generally because of a precise reason, not because I
> "vandalize" bugs.
Once for jumping to the conclusion that your change must have had bad
intentions. I looked at this bug longer than usual (even on the first
change of affects), because I could not imagine bad intentions
initially. After the second change with no side communication, I failed
to imagine a constructive intention and prematurely jumped to a bad
conclusion. I'm sorry for having that attributed to you.
> All the above packages build-depend on plasma-workspace-dev, which used
> to depend on plasma-workspace, which lead to an indirect dependency on
> breeze-cursor-theme.
> However, since the upload plasma-workspace 5.14.5.1-3, this is no more
> the case, and we can check the status of the aforementioned packages:
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/kde-cli-tools -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/powerdevil -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/systemsettings -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/apper -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/kget -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/kdeplasma-addons
> can be built now, fails because of #887308
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/khotkeys -- OK
> http://crossqa.debian.net/src/plasma-desktop
> still blocked by other issues
And a second time for not checking the obvious (in retrospect). I did
check the bug and breeze-cursor-theme and your mails, but failed to
consider dropping the dependency as a reason for changing affects. Thus
I wrongly concluded that the situation must be unchanged and considered
the initial rationale for my setting of affects undisputed.
> It is really sad to see that, instead of checking yourself whether the
> situation of the bug was changed, you assumed that the metadata you set
> was perfect, and and set it back with no additional doubt on your side.
> Even more, calling other Debian developers "vandals" because of this,
> with "he touched my bug like I do not want" as the _sole_ reason.
You made it abundantly clear that checking the packages should have been
obvious, yes. I'll keep that in mind in order not repeat that mistake.
Let me propose two measures to improve the communication on your side as
well:
I think the bts command is kinda an anti-feature of the bts, because it
makes it so easy to change bugs without giving a rationale. Yet, it
allows adding comments. A few key strokes more (e.g. bts affects 941147
= "# dependency dropped") would have helped here. I therefore ask you to
use the comment feature more actively.
Another aspect is that when you see me reverting your change, it should
have been obvious to you that I failed to understand your reasons. This
would have been a good time to explain it in more words than zero. I do
understand that being more verbose does cost time - a scarce resource,
but I think it is required for constructive interaction.
Thank you for your work on the qt/kde stack and even caring for ftcbfs
bugs! Unfortunately, it looks like I won't be at a DebConf any time soon
to buy you a beer.
Helmut
Reply to: